I'd like to think that the people involved in "Extraordinary Rendition" do consider these matters, Sparrow. Is it justifyable to torture someone if you think that they have information that may save the lives of innumerable innocent people?

No; what gives us the right to even ask such a question with a view to acting on our decision?

No; what gives us the right to even ask such a question with a view to acting on our decision?

People to whom we give the responsibility of ensuring our collective security?

I'm a moral coward - I couldn't make that decision, and I honestly cannot imagine how the people that have to make such decisions are able to do so. But the fact is that such things do have to be decided.

Yes, and quite right too! I've also done 35mph in a 30 zone, so lock me up and throw away the key!

Really, do you think that this disqualifies me from believing downloading material illegally from current, living, authors, is wrong?

Bluntly, yes. If you aren't going to follow the law of your own land, even when you don't agree with it, how do you 1. cheer on destruction of other people's freedoms when they may be doing no more than what you are doing. and 2. who made you Poo-Bah to override the laws of your own land to your own personal whim? Inquiring gendarmes want to know....

Nobody follows all the laws of their own country, Ralph, and the fact that something is against the law does not mean that the law is always applied.

Ripping a CD that you've bought perfectly legally to your own iPod is illegal in the UK. How many people are prosecuted for doing so? Zero. Does that mean that we shouldnt' have a copyright law? No, of course not, because there are circumstances in which prosecution for copyright violation is perfectly justified (eg people who illegally sell pirate DVDs on market stalls, to name but one example).

So, am I pleased to see this law passed in France? Yes, I'm delighted. Is it likely that it's going to be used to prosecute everyone who downloads a dodgy music track? No, of course not, but the important point is that it's there for the situations in which it needs to be used - eg large scale uploaders.

That is the point of a court - to determine whether or not the person is guilty. If there is evidence to suggest that someone may reasonably be supposed to be guilty - eg a copyright holder has personally downloaded a file from the IP address of that person - then that seems like a reasonable circumstance for instituting legal action. They may indeed be innocent - that is for the court to decide.

The state of the world as it is is the best argument against Harry. This is what happens when we allow our 'leaders' to seize illegal powers out of our own fear: illegal wars, people being held in prison for YEARS without any defense or proof of guilt.

The fact that Henry is a scofflaw in his own country certainly makes ANYTHING he has to say on the subject less than worthless.

He'd like to lock other people up and throw away the key for doing exactly what he does himself. What kind of hypocrite is that?

(pokes head in the door wearing as much armor as he could wear to ask an innocent question)

If, instead, a law was passed that was reliable (not subject to possible false accusations) and protected people's privacy but was effective at detecting illegal file-sharing, would it have been acceptable? I realize that without the details of such a hypothetical law, it's hard to say anything at all. But I'm trying to find out how much of people's pretty boisterous objections are simply because it's a law designed to protect intellectual property rights for which you personally may or may not have any respect for.

The ones who took us into the Iraq War?
A corrupt government with a majority in Parliament, based on a minority of the vote?

Countless innocent lives would have been saved if they hadn't tried to ensure our 'collective security' - that was their excuse wasn't it?

No government since the war has had a "majority" of the vote in the UK, Sparrow. If you're going to disquality a government as being invalid on that basis, what are you going to put in its place?

I am - as I've said here on many occasions - very much against the war in Iraq, but hindsight is a wonderful thing, and neither you nor I saw the evidence which led to Mr. Blair's decision to go to war. He is an intelligent man; I am prepared to believe that he must have seen information that led him to believe that such an attack was justified. We have not seen that information. The fact that it may have been erroneous doesn't change the fact that he had to make that decision at that time. I didn't vote for him, but to make that decision was his job.

(pokes head in the door wearing as much armor as he could wear to ask an innocent question)

If, instead, a law was passed that was reliable (not subject to possible false accusations) and protected people's privacy but was effective at detecting illegal file-sharing, would it have been acceptable? I realize that without the details of such a hypothetical law, it's hard to say anything at all. But I'm trying to find out how much of people's pretty boisterous objections are simply because it's a law designed to protect intellectual property rights for which you personally may or may not have any respect for.

Absolutely acceptable. I think it would end up ineffectual, as people would just use other means to transfer files (like sneakernet), but perfectly acceptable. If you have that answer, please tell Congress, the EU and other interested parties.

If, instead, a law was passed that was reliable (not subject to possible false accusations) and protected people's privacy but was effective at detecting illegal file-sharing, would it have been acceptable?

Every law is subject to false accusions; that's why we have courts, to determine whether the accusation that has been made against someone is true or false. With this law that has been set up in France, the evidence against someone will be presented to a body that's been set up called the "Haute Autorité", which will determine what, if any, punishment is appropriate - temporary suspension of internet access, a fine, or an injunction banning them from certain activities. There is not, as has been incorrectly suggested by some on this thread, an automatic assumption of guilt and termination of internet access without "due process".

Device: eb1150 & is that a nook in her pocket, or she just happy to see you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarryT

That is the point of a court - to determine whether or not the person is guilty. If there is evidence to suggest that someone may reasonably be supposed to be guilty - eg a copyright holder has personally downloaded a file from the IP address of that person - then that seems like a reasonable circumstance for instituting legal action. They may indeed be innocent - that is for the court to decide.

well harry here you're really making my point for me, which is that this law does NOT work that way ; it's not collecting reliable evidence (there is no way to do that, given the way it will be implemented, as many have pointed out, for purely technical reasons) and most importantly the sanctions are NOT the result of a legal action nor decided by a court (ie a responsible judicial entity) after hearing arguments from BOTH parties. that is the whole problem here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vivaldirules

(pokes head in the door wearing as much armor as he could wear to ask an innocent question)

If, instead, a law was passed that was reliable (not subject to possible false accusations) and protected people's privacy but was effective at detecting illegal file-sharing, would it have been acceptable? I realize that without the details of such a hypothetical law, it's hard to say anything at all. But I'm trying to find out how much of people's pretty boisterous objections are simply because it's a law designed to protect intellectual property rights for which you personally may or may not have any respect for.

well, precisely the problem with this law is that it is neither reliable NOR does it do anything to protect / encourage content creators (which, ironically, is the pretext of its creation). i'm against THIS LAW and THIS IMPLEMENTATION OF IT, because it does not address the real issue in any way, nor is it reliable (nor can it be), and it relies completely on violating my right to privacy, and can still potentially (very easily) lead to me being punished for something which i am innocent of ! i would be in favor of a law like you describe, although to be quite honest i'm really not sure such a method can exist / be effective (for technical reasons).

so, to put it another way (and to answer what seems to be your underlying question) : yes, i am completely in favor of remunerating content creators. i support authors, musicians, etc. and want to encourage them. i am in favor of laws protecting their IP rights within reason (i'm also in favor of a radical reform of current copyright laws, however, since they are currently bloated and abusive ; but that is a whole nother sack of knots, so let's not get into it, we've got other threads for that). the problem is this law does not address any of those issues.

Every law is subject to false accusions; that's why we have courts, to determine whether the accusation that has been made against someone is true or false.

Yes, but across the pond, we believe in the accuser show some reasonable evidence that there is a crime and person x was involved before throwing the full weight of the state behind it. This is for the protection of people from unreasonable (and expensive) prosecution. I see no reason to throw that safeguard out the window for "ease of conviction".